Review and Herald, Vol. 23, No. 14. (3/1/1864)

Review and Herald

Mar 1, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 1, 1864

Sabbath Discussion.

The following discussion was held in the city of Manchester, N. H., on the evenings of the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th of December, 1863, between Elder M. E. Cornell, of Michigan, and Elder Miles Grant, editor of the World's Crisis, Boston, Mass.

QUESTION.

Resolved, That the Sabbath of the fourth commandment still exists, and is binding upon mankind. Eld. Cornell affirms. Eld. Grant denies.

ELDER CORNELL'S FIRST SPEECH.

In entering upon the investigation of this question, it is important to have the question settled as to where the burden of proof lies. The following, from Whately's Rhetoric, is to the point:

"It is a point of great importance to decide in each case, at the outset of the discussion, in your own mind, and clearly to point out to the hearer, as occasion may serve, on which side the presumption lies, and to which belongs the burden of proof. For, though it may often be expedient to bring forward more proofs than can fairly be demanded of you, it is always desirable when this is the case that it should be known, and the strength of the case estimated accordingly."

In regard to the burden of proof, Prof. Tuppan says:

"Any ancient institution is presumed to be well founded until its principles can be shown to be false and mischievous; or it can be shown, by fraud or violence, to have supplanted a more ancient institution. In the latter case, the burden of proof falls upon the more modern, and the presumption lies in favor of the more ancient institution. It happens, sometimes, that those are called innovators, who are in reality the advocates of what is truly ancient and venerable. If they prove this to be the fact, they of course transfer the burden of proof to where it justly belongs."

Again, he says:

"There is a presumption in favor of the old opinion and established usage, and he who attacks the question assumes the burden of proof; and unless he can bring proof to the contrary, the old opinion and institution must stand."

—Tuppan's Logic, pp. 482, 487.

Our question relates to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. And who will deny that it is both ancient and venerable? Indeed, it is one of the most ancient institutions spoken of in the Bible. Its existence and observance are coeval with the history of mankind. If we apply the rules I have quoted, this ancient Sabbath must still exist, unless it can be shown to have been superseded or abolished. When a law is once enacted by the proper authority, it must remain in force until the same authority repeals it; and the repeal must be as plainly stated as the original enactment. It will therefore devolve upon the negative to prove that the Sabbath institution has been expressly repealed. He must show when, where, how, and by whom it was done; for if it has not been abolished, it still exists, and if it exists, of course it is binding upon mankind.

Every good institution must be based upon existing facts, and be enforced for just reasons. The facts stated for the Sabbath institution are, First, God rested

on the seventh day. Second, He blessed and sanctified the day on which he rested. These facts and reasons are set forth in the Sabbath commandment as reasons for keeping the Sabbath day holy. These reasons were sufficient at the time the law was given to constitute the obligation, and, as they still remain, the obligation growing out of them must still exist.

We will now come to the authority of the New Testament for direct proof that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment still exists. The witnesses are Christ and his inspired apostles. The first New Testament writer took up his pen about ten years this side of the resurrection of Christ. It was all written in the Christian age, for the benefit of the men of the Christian dispensation. The terms they used are the inspired terms for the present time.

1. In Matt. xii, 1-12, the disciples and our Saviour were accused of breaking the Sabbath law. Christ vindicates the disciples by referring to the Scriptures (Hosea vi, 6) to show that they were guiltless, verse 7. "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." To eat on the Sabbath day when they "were an hungered," was an act of "mercy," and therefore it was lawful.

Again, when they charged Christ with Sabbath-breaking, for healing the sick on the Sabbath, he replied, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Verses 11, 12.

The word "lawful" signifies "according to law." The fourth commandment was the great Sabbath law, hence Jesus declared that his acts were according to the fourth commandment. Thus, he recognized the Sabbath and the law of the Sabbath as still in existence. He does not even intimate that it was relaxed, or ever would be.

2. I will next show that the Sabbath existed and was binding this side of the crucifixion of Christ. If it was to expire at the cross, the disciples would have had some intimation of it, no doubt. Luke xxiii, 54-56. "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women, also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment."

Luke recorded this by inspiration thirty-three years after it transpired. How careful he was to refer to the commandment to show how the disciples rested thirty-three years before. This was written for us. He refers to the commandment familiarly, as actually existing and in force at the time of his writing.

3. It was the regular custom of our Saviour to preach on the Sabbath days. Proof—Luke iv, 16. "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read." Verse 31. "And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath days."

When we consider that this was recorded by inspiration, more than thirty years after this dispensation commenced, we must conclude that the Sabbath is recognized as an existing institution, well understood, and observed at the time the record was made.

ELDER GRANT'S FIRST SPEECH.

I am glad to engage in this discussion with one who is so well posted on his side of the question before us. The Scriptures, of course, must settle the question, for when good men differ, one or both must be wrong. We do not claim to be very well posted. The question however, is one of great importance, for, admitting my friend's position correct, we are all Sabbath-breakers! and we know that a great penalty was attached to Sabbath-breaking. Tappan's Logic has been referred to about ancient institutions, &c. True, the Sabbath was ancient, but it was kept only by the Jews. I shall take the position that the Sabbath was only a positive institution, and shall prove that it was binding on the Jews, but never on the Gentiles, only when they lived in Jewish families; hence, we consider the statement that the Sabbath is binding upon all mankind, not correct.

My friend claims that the Sabbath still exists, because the reason assigned for its observance still exists. But I will show that the reason for keeping it does not apply to the human family—that it does not apply to the Gentiles. Deut. v, 15. "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day."

God took that day to commemorate their deliverance because it was the day on which he rested. It was binding only on Israel, for they only were delivered from Egyptian bondage.

We now call on him to show that any Sabbath existed before they came to Mt. Sinai; or to give one passage in the New Testament to prove that the fourth commandment still exists. Matt. xii is quoted to prove it. "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." But it is not lawful to do wrong on any day in the Christian age, surely? Luke iv, 16, and xxiii, 56, are quoted to prove that Christ and the disciples preached on the Sabbath days. True, and so should I, if I was among those who kept that day.

I will now advance argument to show that the Sabbath is done away. Heb. viii, 7. "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." This shows that the first covenant was faulty and can be improved. Gal. iv, 21-24. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar."

We learn what the covenant of Sinai was from 1 Kings viii, 9. "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt." Also, in Deut. v, 2, 3, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us who are all of us here alive this day." The ten commandments, then, were the first covenant. It was not made before it was made with Israel at Sinai, and of course it was not binding before it was made.

ELDER CORNELL'S SECOND SPEECH.

I propose to notice my friend's last argument first. He says the covenant in Heb. viii, 7, was the ten commandments. But if we examine the argument of Paul in Hebrews, we shall find that he is speaking of the covenant of the priesthood, which also was given at Sinai. Heb. ix, 1. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary." "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation," verse 10. This shows that the first covenant had carnal ordinances, meats, drinks, &c. But there is not a word in the ten commandment covenant about a priesthood, meats or drinks, or carnal ordinances.

He quotes Gal. iv, 21-24 about the first, or Agar covenant, and applies it to the ten commandments. But verse 25 says, "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children." This covenant answereth to Jerusalem; but the ten commandment covenant could be kept in any place, not a word in it that relates to old Jerusalem.

I will now show that there were two covenants made at Sinai, and I will present them in contrast:

1. God's covenant is commanded to man. Proof: "And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them on two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13.

But the Horeb covenant was an agreement between God and Israel. Proof: "Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice, indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Ex. xix, 5-8.

2. God's covenant was written by his own hand on the tables of stone. Proof: "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Ex. xxxi, 18.

But the Horeb covenant was written by the hand of Moses in a book. Proof: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." Ex. xxiv, 4. "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished." Deut. xxxi, 24.

3. God's covenant was put in the ark. Proof: "And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the Lord commanded me." Deut. x, 5. "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb," &c. 1 Kings viii, 9.

But the Book of the Covenant was kept in the side of the ark. Proof: "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side ("By the side," Bernard's trans.) of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

4. No blood was ever sprinkled on the tables of the ten commandments.

But the old Book of the Covenant was dedicated with blood. "Whereupon, neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." Heb. ix, 18-20.

The first covenant was atonement in figure; the new covenant is atonement in fact. But there is not a hint about an atonement or a priesthood in the ten commandments.

In regard to the assertion that the Sabbath was not for the Gentiles, we enquire, For whom was the Sabbath made? Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark ii, 27. The term man, in this text, like many others, is generic, and is used in the broadest sense, meaning the entire race. "A noun without an adjective is to be taken in the broadest sense, as 'man is accountable,' Kirkham's Grammar." "It is appointed unto man once to die." Gentiles die, therefore the term "man" means Gentiles as well as Jews. "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." Gentiles are made of dust. For man made of the dust, the Sabbath was made. There was another institution made for man at the same time and place, namely, The marriage relation. 1 Cor. xi, 9. "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Now if the expression, "The Sabbath was made for man," can be construed to mean only the Jew man, then, by the same rule, the woman created for man is confined to the Jews, and Gentiles have no right to marry.

My friend says, The reason for the Sabbath was that God brought Israel out of Egypt. "Therefore, he commanded you to keep the Sabbath day," shows that the Sabbath is a memorial of their deliverance, and was not obligatory before. On this we remark that this was only a specific reason. The fourth commandment contains the general reason, which points back to creation. They had been slaves in Egypt, where they could not keep the Sabbath, but now they were brought out where they could, they must serve God in all things.

But the argument on the word "therefore" proves too much. Deut. xxiv, 17, 18. "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge: but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore, I command thee to do this thing."

Is this precept a memorial of their coming out of Egypt?! The same rule will apply to the whole law. Lev. xix, 36, 37. "Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord."

My friend argues that the Sabbath is not now binding, because it is not commanded over again in the New Testament. This argument assumes that whatever is not given over again upon a new account, is not binding. But I deny that Christ commanded anything over again upon a new account. Christ and the apostles quote some of the commandments, and refer to others, as well established principles and laws. They quote the law to enforce their teaching. Matt. vii, 12. "Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

He believes the first three commandments of the decalogue are now binding. I now call on him to show where these are commanded over again, or to give up his position in regard to the Sabbath. When he will show that the first three are given over again, I will show that the Sabbath is given over again just as plainly. Why call for a re-enactment of the Sabbath when it never was done away?

I can find where the Sabbath was definitely and plainly commanded, and the reason why; now let him show where it is as definitely abolished. What! the weekly Sabbath, made for man soon as the world began, abolished! As well talk of the abolition of marriage, which was instituted at the same time and place. These two ancient, honorable institutions are as old as our world, and they both have the same divine sanction, the same origin.

ELDER GRANT'S SECOND SPEECH.

We are glad our friend is pressing up to the point. He says there are many covenants; that is true, but we ask him to attend to the one we are talking about. We want something to show how we are to keep the Sabbath, and perhaps we shall show that he does not keep it. If we are to keep the Sabbath, we must do it according to the rule in Ex. xxxv, 2, 3. "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day."

I want to enquire, Does he believe the stoning penalty is binding? We cannot keep the Sabbath here. We must have fires in our dwellings. In the New Testament we learn that Christ broke the Sabbath, and justified himself in it. He commanded the man to carry his bed on the Sabbath. This was a violation of the fourth commandment, which said "They should bear no burdens on the Sabbath day."

My friend says, The ten commandments were binding on the Patriarchs. Let him prove it. If they were binding before Sinai, why command them over again?

The Sabbath was made for man, true, it was not

made for beasts; it was a day of rest to commemorate the deliverance from Egyptian bondage.

At the close of our last speech we were endeavoring to show that the first covenant was the ten commandments. I will now give further proof: Deut. ix, 9. "When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights; I neither did eat bread nor drink water."

We will now show that this covenant is done away: 2 Cor. iii, 7, 13. "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away." "And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished."

This testimony shows that the law written on stones was "abolished," "done away." The ten commands referred only to outward acts, but the new covenant takes hold of the heart.

ELDER CORNELL'S THIRD SPEECH.

My friend thinks we cannot keep the Sabbath here because we need fires. But we are talking of the fourth commandment Sabbath. The command says not a word about kindling fires. This was a mere arrangement for Israel while they were in the warm climate of Arabia, where no fires were needed, unless to cook manna, or for burnt offerings. They were to cook their manna on the sixth day. They should not kindle fires to cook manna. But they were commanded to offer burnt offerings on the Sabbath day, and of course had to kindle fires for that purpose. Num. xxviii, 9, 10. "And on the Sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof; this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering and his drink offering." When they came to Palestine they needed fires to keep from freezing, as it was very cold there in the winter. Did God ever require man to suffer on the Sabbath for want of fire to make him comfortable?!

He enquires whether the stoning penalty is still in force? I answer it is not. The old death ministration is done away. But this does not affect the obligation of the Sabbath any more than it does the other nine commandments. The death penalty was attached to most of the other commands, which he admits are still binding. The penalty may be changed, and not affect the binding obligation of the law in the least. In several of the States they have changed the penalty for murder from hanging till dead to imprisonment for life, but the law against killing has been in force every moment since it was first enacted.

I now come to the charge against my Saviour, that he broke the Sabbath, and justified himself in it. "He violated the fourth command, which forbids bearing burdens!" Wonder if my friend has ever read the fourth commandment? There is not a word about "bearing burdens" in it. But I repel the charge that my Lord was a Sabbath-breaker. This charge was first made by the wicked Pharisees. My friend is found in bad company on this point. None will deny that the Sabbath was binding up to the cross. If, then, Christ did not keep it, he must have sinned against God, but the Scripture saith that "In him is no sin," and he was "without sin." He, himself, declared that what he did on the Sabbath was "lawful;" and before he left the world he said, "I have kept my Father's commandments." John xv, 10.

The Elder thinks that if the ten commandments existed before Sinai, there was no need of commanding them over again. He has forgotten his argument that none of them are now binding unless they are commanded over again. If they existed before Christ, why command them over again? Israel had been in slavery and had lost the knowledge of God to a great extent. When they were brought out of Egypt, Nehemiah says, "Thou madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, &c." Neh. ix, 14. If this proves that the Sabbath did not exist before, then Ezek. xx, 5, "And made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt," would prove that God himself did not exist before! That which proves too much proves nothing.

He will have it that the Sabbath is a memorial of the deliverance from Egypt. But in this he greatly errs, for memorials must have in them a fitness to the thing commemorated. There is a fitness in baptism to the Lord's resurrection; also, of the bread and wine to the crucifixion. Now, we enquire, how did they come out of Egypt? The first-born of the Egyptians were slain, and there was great excitement; the king of Egypt arose up in the night and told the people to be gone. Ex. xii, 33. "And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, we be all dead men." Thus they came out of Egypt with their cattle and their luggage, at midnight, with one grand rush. Now does the rest and quiet of the Sabbath fitly represent it. A rest to commemorate a rush!!

2 Cor. iii, 7, is brought forward to prove the ten commandments abolished. But when closely examined, we find it only shows that the glory of the old ministration of the law is done away. If it proves the Sabbath abolished, it equally proves the abolition of the other nine commands. Did Christ abolish "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal?" "O, no! these are needed still." Yes! and so is the Sabbath. Man's physical, mental and moral nature demands a day for rest and worship. Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for man." Why abolish that which was made for man?

My friend says the ten commandments referred only to outward acts. Does "Thou shalt not covet," refer to outward acts?!

In our first speech we made an argument on the facts and reasons on which the Sabbath institution is based. That the seventh day became the Sabbath by the act of God in resting upon it; that he sanctified it because that in it he had rested, and that he required man to keep it, because he made it holy. My friend has passed this by. Is he afraid to grapple with it?

I will now show that the ten commandments, Sabbath not excepted, were in existence before the Sinaitic covenant was made, and if I prove that the Sabbath existed, and was binding by law, five minutes before the Sinaitic covenant was made, the doing away of that covenant will not affect the Sabbath in the least. If the Sabbath did not originate with the old covenant, there is no necessity that it should end with it. I will refer to the commands in their order. 1. Jacob required his household to "Put away their strange gods." Gen. xxxv, 2, 3. 2. "Images" were understood to be "gods." Gen. xxxi, 19, 20. 3. Israel was forbidden to "Profane the name of their God," for the land had been defiled on account of such abominations, and the Lord abhorred the nations because of their sins. Lev. xviii, 3, 21, 23, 27. "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. v, 13. This shows that the law existed before Israel received it at Sinai. 4. "And he said unto them, this is that which the Lord HATH SAID, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord," &c. Ex. xvi, 23. By comparing Ex. xvi, 1, with Ex. xix, 1, we learn that this was spoken at least thirty days before they came to Mt. Sinai. 5. The son of Noah was "cursed" for dishonoring his father. Gen. ix, 24, 25. 6. When the king of Egypt commanded the midwives to kill all the male children, they refused because they "feared God." Ex. i, 16, 17. 7. Joseph refused the request of his mistress, and said, "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" Gen. xxxix, 9. 8. The sons of Jacob said, "How, then, should we steal out of thy lord's house silver or gold?" Gen. xlv, 8. 9. When Joseph was wickedly imprisoned by false witness, the Lord greatly blessed him. Gen. xxxix, 7-20. 10. They understood stealing to be a sin, and covetousness is included in the breaking of the eighth command.

I will show that there was a law for the Sabbath before the people came to Mt. Sinai: "And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, &c." This proves that the keeping of God's commandments included the Sabbath, in the patriarchal age. Gen. xxvi. "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws." The Sabbath being a part of God's commandments and laws, we see that Abraham must have kept it.

I will next offer proof that the law of the ten commandments, as a whole, is brought over into this dispensation. In Rom. ii, 7-28, Paul is reproving the Jew for violating the law. He quotes three of the ten commandments to prove that they had not kept the law. In chap. iii, 1, he refers to the "oracles of God" committed to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. This shows us that he is talking of the old code of ten commandments. In verse 9, Paul says that he has "Proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin," which shows that the law was binding on Gentiles as well as Jews.

In verse 19, the apostle comes to an important conclusion: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." We now enquire: 1. If the law died at the cross, how could it prove the world guilty in A. D. 60, the date of Paul's letter to the Romans? 2. If it was binding only on the Jews, how could Paul use it to prove "all the world guilty"?

ELDER GRANT'S THIRD SPEECH.

My friend says, The Sabbath existed before Sinai. If so, it must have existed without a penalty, which is not possible. He has not given us any proof that the Sabbath was ever given to the Gentiles. He quotes one of the commands that does not refer to outward acts. But what I say, is, The law did not take hold of a man till the act was committed. Let him show that the law of ten commands is brought over as a whole, and he has gained his point. I don't see any light in his position that 2 Cor. iii, refers to the glory of Moses' face being done away. I will now notice his argument on Rom. iii, 19. Let Paul explain himself. Rom. vii, 1-6. "Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Now, we have as good a right to say that "law" here means the ten commandments as in the case he refers to in Rom. iii, 19. Paul says we are "dead to the law," have got through with it, and are married to Christ. "That being dead wherein we were held," then the law is dead. We are dead, and the law is dead. We have nothing more to do with the law.

My friend charges me with having no Sabbath. I shall show that the first day of the week is the Christian's day of rest in honor of Christ's resurrection. Every man who refuses to keep the first day of the week virtually denies the resurrection of Christ. Christ has given a new covenant, and put into it all of the ten commands except the fourth. Wood says, The Sabbath was given to the Jews, but not to any other nation. Selden says, He found no evidence that the Sabbath was kept among the ancient Gentiles.

Discussion at Manchester, N. H.

By John Norton Loughborough

As it was known to many friends that I was present at this discussion between Elder M. E. Cornell and Elder Miles Grant, on the Sabbath question, and that I had taken quite copious notes of said discussion, I have been earnestly requested by these friends to give a report for publication.

If I had thought it would be necessary to publish this discussion, I should have given as near as possible a verbatim report. Elder Grant has given a one-sided report in the World's Crisis. This fact alone makes it duty to present before the public both sides, as far as it is in my power so to do. My object was to take the principal arguments advanced, and the scriptures used on both sides, and to state the propositions and arguments as far as I went, in the words of the speakers; and where authors were quoted, to state in the words of the authors the real point for which they were quoted. Many of the authors quoted by Elder Grant I have not access to in making the report, and could only give in the report of these authors such statements as were taken at the time he was speaking. But in each case I have taken the statements that were considered as having a direct bearing on the question. The authors quoted by Elder Cornell I have access to, and their statements are generally in full.

I have endeavored to avoid repetition as much as possible, although there was, as is usual in discussions, much repetition. I have only repeated where the arguments were repeated for the sake of advancing some new ideas upon them. These facts, with the consideration that Elder Cornell is a more rapid speaker than Elder Grant, will explain why some of Elder Grant's speeches appear in the report much shorter than his opponent's. I have labored, however, to state all his arguments, scriptures, and proofs, accurately.

I have seen some remarks by Elder Grant in the World's Crisis, to the effect that a "bold challenge had been made" for a discussion. I think there must be a misunderstanding by the Elder on this point. We did not make a challenge for a discussion, but when holding a tent-meeting at Manchester, N. H., last summer, requested any one that wished to oppose our views on the Sabbath question to come and preach on the subject in the tent. After this, Elder Bishop sent me a challenge for a discussion. Several of the Advent brethren in Manchester told me that they thought a discussion with him would not be satisfactory, as but few of them sympathized with him. We said to them, if they were anxious to have a discussion they had better get Elder Grant, a man in whom they all had confidence. Accordingly they held a correspondence with Elder Grant, which resulted in a discussion.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Topsham, Maine, Feb., 1864.

The Cost of Religion

It will cost something to be religious: it will cost more not to be so,

Christ the Way to Eternal Life

CHRIST being the way, all who would seek eternal life must come unto him. There is no other road to forgiveness but through his blood. The devices of man will never avail, for they accord not with the appointments of God.

Pride and Humility

Pride cannot bear reproof, but humility bows before it.

Continue reading: A Fearful Thing